On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 08:28:50PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > On 03.10.22 19:48, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 08:45:18PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > >> On Sat, Oct 01, 2022 at 12:07:39PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > >>> On 30.09.22 14:26, Jerry Ling wrote: > >>>> > >>>> looks like someone has done it: > >>>> https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=2059823#p2059823 > >>>> > >>>> and the bisect points to: > >>>> > >>>> |# first bad commit: [fc6aff984b1c63d6b9e54f5eff9cc5ac5840bc8c] > >>>> drm/i915/bios: Split VBT data into per-panel vs. global parts Best, Jerry | > >>> > >>> FWIW, that's 3cf050762534 in mainline. Adding Ville, its author to the > >>> list of recipients. > >> > >> I definitely had no plans to backport any of that stuff, > >> but I guess the automagics did it anyway. > >> > >> Looks like stable is at least missing this pile of stuff: > >> 50759c13735d drm/i915/pps: Keep VDD enabled during eDP probe > >> 67090801489d drm/i915/pps: Reinit PPS delays after VBT has been fully parsed > >> 8e75e8f573e1 drm/i915/pps: Split PPS init+sanitize in two > >> 586294c3c186 drm/i915/pps: Stash away original BIOS programmed PPS delays > >> 89fcdf430599 drm/i915/pps: Don't apply quirks/etc. to the VBT PPS delays if they haven't been initialized > >> 60b02a09598f drm/i915/pps: Introduce pps_delays_valid() > >> > >> But dunno if even that is enough. > > If you need testers: David (now CCed) apparently has a affected machine > and offered to test patches in a different subthread of this thread. > > >> This bug report is probably the same thing: > >> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/7013 > > Sounds like it. > > > Also cc intel-gfx... > > Ahh, sorry, should have done that when I CCed you. After looking at some logs we do end up with potentially bogus panel power sequencing delays, which may harm the LCD panel. Greg, I recommend immediate revert of this stuff, and new stable release ASAP. Plus a recommendation that no one using laptops with Intel GPUs run 5.19.12. > > Ciao, Thorsten > > > >>> Did anyone check if a revert on top of 5.19.12 works easily and solves > >>> the problem? > >>> > >>> And does anybody known if mainline affected, too? > >>> > >>> Ciao, Thorsten > >>> > >>> > >>>> On 9/30/22 07:11, Slade Watkins wrote: > >>>>> Hey Greg, > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Sep 30, 2022, at 1:59 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 06:37:48AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 10:26:25PM -0400, Jerry Ling wrote: > >>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> It has been reported by multiple users across a handful of distros > >>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>> there seems to be regression on Framework laptop (which presumably > >>>>>>>> is not > >>>>>>>> that special in terms of mobo and display) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Ref: > >>>>>>>> https://community.frame.work/t/psa-dont-upgrade-to-linux-kernel-5-19-12-arch1-1-on-arch-linux-gen-11-model/23171 > >>>>>>> Can anyone do a 'git bisect' to find the offending commit? > >>>>>> Also, this works for me on a gen 12 framework laptop: > >>>>>> $ uname -a > >>>>>> Linux frame 5.19.12 #68 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Fri Sep 30 07:02:33 > >>>>>> CEST 2022 x86_64 GNU/Linux > >>>>>> > >>>>>> so there's something odd with the older hardware? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> greg k-h > >>>>> Could be. Running git bisect for 5.19.11 and 5.19.12 (as suggested by > >>>>> the linked forum thread) returned nothing on gen 11 for me. > >>>>> > >>>>> This is very odd, > >>>>> -srw > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> -- > >> Ville Syrjälä > >> Intel > > -- Ville Syrjälä Intel
